[EM] unintended changes in pairwise preferences

[Andrew Myers]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:52:50PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote:
> Dear Andrew Myers,
> 
> you wrote (18 July 2005):
> 
> > I've noticed that in practice MAM -- and the deterministic variant
> > I developed for CIVS -- both seem to be much more stable than
> > Schulze/beatpath winner, though I don't have a good argument for
> > why this is. It seems that it's easier to upend the ordering by
> > creating long, inobvious beatpaths than it is in MAM.
> 
> Are you talking about stability when determining the winner or when
> determining the ranking? I have understood your 19 Sep 2004 mail in
> such a manner that you are talking about stability when determining
> the ranking.

Both. Instability in the ranking obviously translates to instability
in the winner when it's the top rank we're talking about. The lower
ranks seem to generally be more unstable regardless of completion
method, but it has seemed to me that MAM is more stable at every rank.
Again, this is just something I've observed very informally
and I haven't done any careful statistics or analysis.

-- Andrew